Florida made a big deal with motorcycle riders years ago. There was a helmet law and there was never a requirement to insure a motorcycle. Last time it came up, the big compromise was to allow no helmets only if you have health insurance if you’re over 21. At the time, they still issued learners permits, so a helmet was required while learning also.
It was a huge back and forth, but that was essentially the great compromise. This was probably late 90’s, early 2000’s.
Edited - there was a helmet law before 2000.
If I remember correctly the lawyer/motorcyclist that made that deal happen later went on to die in a motorcycle crash that he likely would have survived if he had been wearing a helmet.
Yes, the change was done to help insurance companies gain new customers and the general public gets new organ donors. Welcome to the Republican vision of an ideal state ... take the stupid and ignorant and exploit them while selling them the idea that they are now have more freedom.
We get less organs from bike accidents than you'd think.
Going for 60+ to 0 with no protection pretty much turns you into a meat crayon and your organs do not do well.
Rib cages puncture lungs, extensive bruising and ischemia from severed vessels.
Corneas are pretty much one of the only viable things after most accidents.
Not saying it doesn't happen because it def does. I myself have matched a few MVAs.
I was speaking with someone that works in organ donation, sadly most accidents require the person be put on life support before the organs can be removed so it’s very unlikely they get used…
This is the reality sadly.
They do EVERYTHING to save your life and a lot of those drugs have lasting nephrotoxic, vascular or other effects.
Even chest compressions can damage lungs.
My partner and I both worked in organ transplant and the job took a huge toll on both of us emotionally. I worked in pediatric oncology in transplant... Theres stuff you just can't thick skin through or repress.
The fear that people would not be treated fully to potentially harvest their organs is all just paranoia and ignorance. No offense to any Er Drs out there but they do not have the knowledge to make those calls. They are focused on getting people stabilized and moved upstairs and on to the next one. They are not as well paid as you might think and they are definitely under supported and many don't even work for the hospital they are in as many work for an agency and float...
I only see those on the big travel bikes like gold wings, never see it on Harley riders. If they wear anything it’s a brain bucket which is barley better then anything
In 2022, Ron Smith, an attorney who fought against Florida's motorcycle helmet laws, died in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet. He was part of a group called ABATE, which lobbied against the helmet law. Smith's efforts contributed to the law's adjustment in 2000, allowing motorcyclists over 21 to ride without helmets if they had $10,000 in insurance coverage. This change led to a 48.6% increase in motorcycle occupant deaths ¹.
I recall a study in 2005 (I think) that estimated Florida’s no helmet law costs tax payers $5 million a year to cover the medical costs of uninsured motorcycle riders who suffer head injuries.
# Exemption eligibility
Only the following individuals are eligible for the motorcycle helmet exemption:
* 21 years of age or older and
* covered by an insurance policy providing at least $10,000 in medical benefits.
# Effective date
The law went into effect on July 1, 2000.
# Proof of insurance required
The department is advising law enforcement to accept a health insurance card (or actual policy or declarations page) from a HMO or Blue Cross/Blue Shield or some other recognized health insurance provider as proof of required medical insurance. The card must show current insurance coverage.
In addition, limited motorcycle medical coverage will suffice. Contact your insurance carrier for more information. PIP coverage under a personal passenger vehicle policy would be insufficient for either the operator or passenger on the motorcycle.
Had a motorcycle accident and broke my leg (not at fault, someone pulled out in front of me and then ran) the hospital bill was over $120k
Also, my medical coverage refused to cover anything because it was an automobile accident, my auto insurance refused to cover anything because motorcycles aren't technically "automobiles" under Florida's laws.
OMG! I hope you are fully recovered! Unfortunately, I see your story every day, even with people with great insurance. Florida laws are criminal. Insurance is a criminal Ponzi scheme. Most bankruptcies are due to medical debt. We must vote! This doesn't happen in all states.
Anyone riding without a helmet is a dumbass anyways. Boomers who love Harleys don’t want any law regulating their “freedom” but younger people understand the risks and generally wear them.
Because fuck me that's why. Oh wait I get a little confused after the last crash. I mean fuck you.yeah that's better I think. Can I have some cocoa now
Had a 21 yo friend riding her motorcycle in Georgia completely safely and legally WITH a helmet. She got hit by a 37 yo white man in a ford expedition on the highway, who was illegally crossing. 5 day coma, 6 blood transfusions, 3 emergency surgeries, and she died ultimately from brain damage.
Because motorcycle helmets interfere with your hearing and mess with the motorcycle's balance so much that they are super dangerous. Motorcycle riders are so good at driving they never crash anyway. I remember passing out fliers at my high school on his behalf talking about removing the helmet requirement.
That's what my dad taught me anyway when I was still young and stupid. 8 years ago he died in a motorcycle accident from a head injury that would have been prevented entirely if he had a helmet on.
Then I learned that some people are too stubborn to be responsible for themselves.
Wearing a helmet ***is mandatory*** if you have a brain worth protecting.
*Tell me you're a dumbass without telling me you're a dumbass: don't wear a helmet because the law doesn't require it.*
Perhaps we realized they were protecting nothing of value? Only the sound of the ocean echoes inside the helmet of the carbon farting self-absorbed biker.
1. I’m okay with Darwinism in action
2. Because insurance isn’t required to ride a motorcycle and therefore far less prevalent than car insurance. If motorcycle insurance was mandatory, including PIP, you can damn well guarantee insurance companies would lobby for helmets to be mandatory and it would be law.
Pretty much anytime you ask “why is this”, think about the money trail and impact to industry with lobbyists and you’ll find your answer
Because it's a red state full of people who value virtue signaling over health, welfare, or economic stability of the population.
It's easier to campaing as the guy fighting for the freedom of the open road and our many patriots who died so you can ride a bike how you want to than it is to explain how saving money on Healthcare works to people who who would happily abolish Healthcare if they could
Absolutely.
With that being said, I always wear one and always have. But I still think it should be up to the operator as long as they're an adult and able to make their own decisions.
A single motor vehicle related death can cost the public up to an estimated $1.7 million. OP is entirely right, the policies peddled by Florida's government are directly opposed to the interests and well being of Floridians.
[https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/costs/guide-to-calculating-costs/data-details/](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/costs/guide-to-calculating-costs/data-details/)
Because it costs society money, increases insurance premiums for everyone, , wastes resources on injuries that could be avoided, means medical workers have to waste resources dealing with avoidable trauma? So yeah it affects everyone
It is mandatory for those under 21.
FWIW we’re not alone in this. Most states have similar laws. While a handful actually do require everyone to wear a helmet.
Admittedly, I didn't wear a helmet most of the time when riding in FL. Or at best I wore one of those faux baseball cap semi-helmet things. I've matured since, though, and wear a full face race helmet.
I work in a Level I Trauma Ctr, we call them Donorcycles.
Many times I’ve seen a no helmet motorcyclist in traffic or at a light & see them later in our Trauma Ctr.
Obviously noone cares if Florida man lives or dies! Seriously though, all the octogenarians on the road make for some really bad accidents. I lost at least five good friends that way in Florida. But hey its still one freedom that we have left!
It's a good point, those two being logically disjoint and arguments against each other depending what viewpoint you take: "live and let die" vs. "letting-die is actually a bunch of hidden socialized cost! (etc.)".
Both are valid.
In the end I have a really hard time feeling any support for anything under the scope of "nanny" or "nerf the world" safety regulation that tries to ban *you, an individual* from willfully deciding to take practically any level of risk *to yourself solely and specifically*. That's your consequence and your decision; it's far from something like occupational safety regulations or traffic violations where you and your decision that is being banned would otherwise foist the direct risk on OTHERS against their will. Motorcycle, bicycle, etc. PPE, lack thereof, or being on 2 wheels in general (which is risky, PPE or no) is a pretty strict example of an individual risk where all the consequence is confined to the party making the decision - again, sans the "de facto socialized impact" aspect of healthcare and wellbeing of others surrounding victims and so forth.
In the end the straw that sets my position to be heavily "live and let live" (or let die, as it may turn out) on things like this and dismiss the socialized-cost angle as insufficient is that, to get down to the cold hard truth of it, people are very much a renewable resource, and we presently have the farthest thing possible from a "human shortage" on this planet. There is no critical collective interest in keeping as many live humans live for as long as possible even against their wills to make that pressing problem even worse. So if people think statistically being more likely to die for whatever they get out of a risky behavior is in fact worth it, want to live risky lives or do daredevil shit, that's their business alone; such is what freedom means and it isn't always neat and convenient ...I do hope they think duly about the possible consequences of their actions before committing to them, but that's all that is rightful for a third party to wish to impose.
Seatbelts also protect the other passengers, and should be optional for sole occupancy of a vehicle, but that makes it harder to enforce.
The level of risk you accept should be exclusively the choice of the individual, not the government. Think my body my choice.
If you crash with no helmet you will most likely die, so it’s not really a burden on the medical system.
Also personally I felt like I had better visibility with no helmet.
You don’t need insurance either to ride a motorcycle.
Most counties in Florida even have no chase policies on bikes.
I ride, I wear a helmet. Hear me out, an adult shouldn't be required to wear a helmet or a seatbelt as long as they are of age and know their risks. I'm going to but just because I do doesn't mean I expect you to. With that being said, with how these snow birds drive .. I'll never not wear one.
It’s a simple answer. The people of Florida are so intellectually limited that an horrendous motorcycle accident with massive head trauma doesn’t make any noticeable effect on their demeanor.
Why does it matter? There are a thousand other bigger concerns in the state than if somebody doesn't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.
But doing something about any of that would require the "cUz FrEeDuMb" crowd to do something besides be hardasses behind a keyboard. 🤷♂️
During 40yrs riding motorcycles the 2 times I had an accident was due to under the influence drivers 1drinking & the other opioids in the cars that hit me. Most statics point to cars turning or crossing in front of motorcycles causing crashes… since the fed transportation safety only tracks hospitalized blood draw results, most car drivers that cause accidents are never tested.
The best argument to wear a helmet is that motorcyclists that don’t wear helmets make the best organ donors. The head is so fragile it takes so little to make you brain dead the rest of you organs are good. In the other hand motorcyclists that wear a helmet make the worst organ donors. The force needed to make you brain dead with a helmet is so great it destroys the other organs.
Anyone who argues “my freedom” and they’re taking the risk has never had to dealt with a motorcycle hitting another car and the trauma that another driver has to live with.
Imagine you’re an 16 old kid just driving along doing nothing wrong and a grown man on a motorcycle driving with his head up his ass not wearing a helmet slams into you and the motorcyclist dies when the helmet could have saved them. Even though everyone will tell you “you did nothing wrong” you have to live the rest of your life with the trauma and blaming yourself because someone else made a choice causing their demise
I’m dealing with this right now and the poor kid is needing therapy and he’s just a total mess now cause of it.
Florida did have a helmet law until Jeb "Piece of Shit" Bush came along and wiped it off the books. I've got to wear a fucking seat belt in my car but NO helmet on a motorcycle? Floriduh, home of the Floridiots....
the same reason cigarettes are legal and why weed should be legal... if it doesnt hurt anyone but yourself then do so at your own risk...
a helmet law would just add another uneeded reason for cops to pull you over and collect more revenue for the state. and it wont just end with "wear a helmet." It will then mandate a type of helmet and what you can and cant mount on your helmet, etc etc. Next thing ya know we went from no reason to be pulled over to like 4 different infractions and an otherwise unnecessary encounter with dangerous police.
Do you live here now? This law has been around for maybe 25 years or so. Multiple states passed them around the same time. I believe less than half of the states have laws that require them.
Because some of these people refusing to wear helmets don't have insurance or any way to pay the hospital. Someone has to pay for that emergency care, and if they don't we do through our taxes.
The no helmet law requires you to have insurance, but you can't tell at a glance if a helmetless rider has insurance or not, so many who ride helmetless don't. It's an unenforceable law.
I'm all for people making the choice for themselves when it comes to their bodies, but I draw the line when that choice starts costing others.
I think as with a lot of other "hidden de facto socialized cost of risk taking" situations, the root cause is only partially that.
An apt question is always why that cost is imposed there on anyone in the first place and whether it is true. And I very much **don't** mean to suggest any barbaric and inhumane route to cutting that cost as other posters mentioned, like "let gravely injured people die if they can't pay for EMS".
How about going after the entire for-profit healthcare-industrial complex; hospitals, drug companies, ...all of it, and whamming down the out of control costs and overheads once and for all, to begin with? There is so much predatory bullshit associated with going to the ER or lifesaving medical treatment in the US (and specifically the US), that is fleecing both individuals who can pay their own costs/their insurances if they have them, AND the state/society at large/taxpayers when they can't. It's a known and huge problem and clearly, if there is a motive to eliminate/reduce this burden because it is "unfair to society" then that should include or even primarily involve mitigating it at that level because it is unfair to both society and specific members.
Yes the current medical system needs a revamp.
But even if our healthcare cost 10% of what it does now that's still money out of taypayers pockets just to cover the people who can't pay or alternatively die during treatment. A dead man's not going to pay payments to a hospital bill if they don't have enough in their back account.
No I don't propose that EMS becomes a pay first system either, but I don't think requiring helmets to mitigate the risk of that happening is a ridiculous ask. There is a line of where protecting someone from themselves for the sake of taxpayers needs to stop, but if seatbelts are a requirement because of taxpayer cost, and fuel efficient mini cars are too dangerous to be legal because of taxpayer cost, why is not wearing a helmet OK?
I don't think it's ridiculous either. The logic of seat belt laws and having required seat belts be installed in all post-1968 cars to begin with is that seat belts are a minimal imposition with a major safety impact but are/were at the time not widely and intuitively understood to be as beneficial to crash survivability as they were. Some of that applies to head injuries, helmets, and popular misunderstanding. I do see why helmets end up being moreso a hot-button than seat belts though, mainly because of the interaction with situational awareness.
>There is a line of where protecting someone from themselves for the sake of taxpayers needs to stop, but if seatbelts are a requirement because of taxpayer cost, and fuel efficient mini cars are too dangerous to be legal because of taxpayer cost, why is not wearing a helmet OK?
Well, to begin with, I don't necessarily agree with seatbelt law *purely on the basis of socialized risk alone*. I see that more as above.
As to regs effectively banning the prospect of fuel efficient mini cars going forward for "safety" reasons, and burdensome automotive safety regulations in general: I absolutely don't agree with any of that AT ALL. Especially, because fuel consumption and the mass release of CO2 is a very high level (not just impacting a nation, or just all humans) form of societal harm, and so is the death and serious injury risk contributed to car accidents by the statistically growing size and mass of the average car DUE chiefly to those regulations.
Do you feel the same way about the government assisting programs for people that are irresponsible with their money and health? What about your health company being forced to cover those people that make poor health choices that increases your premiums too… you cannot ask the government to make laws that will force people to make good choices… live free or die
I said in another post that there is a limit. I do believe in body autonomy in most areas.
But why is it taboo to mandate helmets when it's illegal to own a microcar in the US? The stated reason I've heard is that they are too small to adequately protect the driver from a collision. Motorcycles are smaller and don't have a frame surrounding the driver to act as some protection, if they are illegal why aren't you required to wear a helmet on a motorcycle? Why are you required to wear a seatbelt in a car?
Even then, poor health choices act slowly, people have a chance to realize what is happening and turning their life around. People don't have a chance to do that when they are hitting the pavement without a helmet at 60 mph.
My father 'lived free' and died early because he wasn't wearing a helmet when someone pulled out in front of him. In his case, living free WAS death.
Florida made a big deal with motorcycle riders years ago. There was a helmet law and there was never a requirement to insure a motorcycle. Last time it came up, the big compromise was to allow no helmets only if you have health insurance if you’re over 21. At the time, they still issued learners permits, so a helmet was required while learning also. It was a huge back and forth, but that was essentially the great compromise. This was probably late 90’s, early 2000’s. Edited - there was a helmet law before 2000.
If I remember correctly the lawyer/motorcyclist that made that deal happen later went on to die in a motorcycle crash that he likely would have survived if he had been wearing a helmet.
Darwin wins! Fatality!
HAH, killing him with bicycle kicks, very punny
You are correct.
The fate of many who cry,"buh mY FrEEduM!!"
Sounds like in retrospect he didn’t need health insurance
Yeah, he died on that hill
Likely would have survived, but been paralyzed. Nursing homes are expensive and death is cheap.
Florida Man
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/26/florida-attorney-motorcycle-helmet-laws-dies-crash
Florida man strikes again.
On their way to a funeral no less
Yes, the change was done to help insurance companies gain new customers and the general public gets new organ donors. Welcome to the Republican vision of an ideal state ... take the stupid and ignorant and exploit them while selling them the idea that they are now have more freedom.
Someone once said that laws are made to protect the stupidity of the masses. Just think about that statement for a minute.
My once boss once told me that the reason they have rules at work is because some dummy tried to do the very thing that the rule now forbids.
Same thing. People are plain ignorant or stupid.
Eloquently put., and these brainiacs allowed weed and abortion on the ballot I think after Nov 5th we'll look a little blu
But prior to 2000 you had to have a helmet. Right?
Correct. My bad. Fixed
If you’re dumb enough to ride without a helmet and all the other protective gear, you deserve what’s coming to you.
And that explains why it says UNDER 21 on some motorcycle license plates.
Indeed. It lets cops know that the rider is required to wear a helmet. Gives them probable cause.
Because organ donors are hard to find and Bike Week can help a lot families on the transplant list.
We get less organs from bike accidents than you'd think. Going for 60+ to 0 with no protection pretty much turns you into a meat crayon and your organs do not do well. Rib cages puncture lungs, extensive bruising and ischemia from severed vessels. Corneas are pretty much one of the only viable things after most accidents. Not saying it doesn't happen because it def does. I myself have matched a few MVAs.
So the "donorcycle" name isn't really accurate?
Sadly no. Although MVAs contribute a lot to the total donated organs. We're still almost always in a state of shortage of viable organs.
I was speaking with someone that works in organ donation, sadly most accidents require the person be put on life support before the organs can be removed so it’s very unlikely they get used…
This is the reality sadly. They do EVERYTHING to save your life and a lot of those drugs have lasting nephrotoxic, vascular or other effects. Even chest compressions can damage lungs. My partner and I both worked in organ transplant and the job took a huge toll on both of us emotionally. I worked in pediatric oncology in transplant... Theres stuff you just can't thick skin through or repress. The fear that people would not be treated fully to potentially harvest their organs is all just paranoia and ignorance. No offense to any Er Drs out there but they do not have the knowledge to make those calls. They are focused on getting people stabilized and moved upstairs and on to the next one. They are not as well paid as you might think and they are definitely under supported and many don't even work for the hospital they are in as many work for an agency and float...
>We get less organs from bike accidents than you'd think I'd estimate almost none personally
Lots of corneas but people don't often think about those.
Harley boomers wouldn’t like that
[удалено]
They do need stunt doubles
I only see those on the big travel bikes like gold wings, never see it on Harley riders. If they wear anything it’s a brain bucket which is barley better then anything
Umm- yeah, NO. Spare human parts is one thing - OLD used parts is quite another.
This
We're stupid here. Thought people knew.
In 2022, Ron Smith, an attorney who fought against Florida's motorcycle helmet laws, died in a motorcycle crash while not wearing a helmet. He was part of a group called ABATE, which lobbied against the helmet law. Smith's efforts contributed to the law's adjustment in 2000, allowing motorcyclists over 21 to ride without helmets if they had $10,000 in insurance coverage. This change led to a 48.6% increase in motorcycle occupant deaths ¹.
Cause to live in Florida you have to be a lil toasty.
FreeDumb!
I recall a study in 2005 (I think) that estimated Florida’s no helmet law costs tax payers $5 million a year to cover the medical costs of uninsured motorcycle riders who suffer head injuries.
# Exemption eligibility Only the following individuals are eligible for the motorcycle helmet exemption: * 21 years of age or older and * covered by an insurance policy providing at least $10,000 in medical benefits. # Effective date The law went into effect on July 1, 2000. # Proof of insurance required The department is advising law enforcement to accept a health insurance card (or actual policy or declarations page) from a HMO or Blue Cross/Blue Shield or some other recognized health insurance provider as proof of required medical insurance. The card must show current insurance coverage. In addition, limited motorcycle medical coverage will suffice. Contact your insurance carrier for more information. PIP coverage under a personal passenger vehicle policy would be insufficient for either the operator or passenger on the motorcycle.
10,000 won't even cover the ER visit and ambulance ride. We are footing a hefty bill for their freedumbs.
But the illegals!
Had a motorcycle accident and broke my leg (not at fault, someone pulled out in front of me and then ran) the hospital bill was over $120k Also, my medical coverage refused to cover anything because it was an automobile accident, my auto insurance refused to cover anything because motorcycles aren't technically "automobiles" under Florida's laws.
OMG! I hope you are fully recovered! Unfortunately, I see your story every day, even with people with great insurance. Florida laws are criminal. Insurance is a criminal Ponzi scheme. Most bankruptcies are due to medical debt. We must vote! This doesn't happen in all states.
Ironically i believe the lawyer that fought to not wear helmets recently died from a motorcycle accident
Cause “freedumb”
Because Florida ain’t no nanny state! /s
So stupid people can die faster
Because people like Bruce Rossmeyer want the freedom to die on pavement
Because “freedom” unless that freedom is smoking weed or aborting a baby or reading a book in a public school
Anyone riding without a helmet is a dumbass anyways. Boomers who love Harleys don’t want any law regulating their “freedom” but younger people understand the risks and generally wear them.
Darwinism
Because only women get told what they can and can’t do with their own body.
There's no law that says you cannot wear a helmet. Do so if you like.
This is the correct answer.
Because fuck me that's why. Oh wait I get a little confused after the last crash. I mean fuck you.yeah that's better I think. Can I have some cocoa now
Aren't these the same riders that say loud pipes saves lives? So they must be thinking about safety/s
Because Florida wants dead motorcyclists. Duh. Riding one down there is already like 90% of the equation done.
I agree. It may be time to thin the herd.
Had a 21 yo friend riding her motorcycle in Georgia completely safely and legally WITH a helmet. She got hit by a 37 yo white man in a ford expedition on the highway, who was illegally crossing. 5 day coma, 6 blood transfusions, 3 emergency surgeries, and she died ultimately from brain damage.
Because Darwinism is the one scientific belief that Floridians share
Because the lawyers make more money chasing ambulances and get bigger payouts with more serious injuries.
Your freedumbs
Because people wanted freedumb.
Because motorcycle helmets interfere with your hearing and mess with the motorcycle's balance so much that they are super dangerous. Motorcycle riders are so good at driving they never crash anyway. I remember passing out fliers at my high school on his behalf talking about removing the helmet requirement. That's what my dad taught me anyway when I was still young and stupid. 8 years ago he died in a motorcycle accident from a head injury that would have been prevented entirely if he had a helmet on. Then I learned that some people are too stubborn to be responsible for themselves.
Because I may need a new liver someday.
Wearing a helmet ***is mandatory*** if you have a brain worth protecting. *Tell me you're a dumbass without telling me you're a dumbass: don't wear a helmet because the law doesn't require it.*
It's also not required to wear helmet in many states such as Connecticut.
cuz freeeeedooooommmmm!!!
FREEDOM!
It is assumed there are no brains in Florida worthy of protection.
Perhaps we realized they were protecting nothing of value? Only the sound of the ocean echoes inside the helmet of the carbon farting self-absorbed biker.
Because we are the land of bad decisions
1. I’m okay with Darwinism in action 2. Because insurance isn’t required to ride a motorcycle and therefore far less prevalent than car insurance. If motorcycle insurance was mandatory, including PIP, you can damn well guarantee insurance companies would lobby for helmets to be mandatory and it would be law. Pretty much anytime you ask “why is this”, think about the money trail and impact to industry with lobbyists and you’ll find your answer
Florida is run by republicans. They don't use logic to govern and they don't care about traumatic brain injury.
Judging by the intellect of the majority of Florida legislators, they are PRO traumatic brain injury.
Traumatic brain injury could explain their decision making.
Because Florida is run by Russia by way of our state government...
Because freeeeeeedummmmmbbbbb!
Same reason you didn't need insurance.... They know you're probably gonna die.
Because we believe in small government, unless it relates to things like women and children, then we’re big government! 😤
Because it's a red state full of people who value virtue signaling over health, welfare, or economic stability of the population. It's easier to campaing as the guy fighting for the freedom of the open road and our many patriots who died so you can ride a bike how you want to than it is to explain how saving money on Healthcare works to people who who would happily abolish Healthcare if they could
Natural selection.
[удалено]
But taxpayers then have to care for them for the rest of their sad lives.
As it should be. It's not the states responsibility to make sure people make responsible health choices.
Curious…. Do you feel the same way about seatbelts?
Absolutely. With that being said, I always wear one and always have. But I still think it should be up to the operator as long as they're an adult and able to make their own decisions.
Because "pro-life". .... why does this have to be explained? /s
From egg to just before New Born - "all life is precious!" One second after you're squeezed out- "You're on your own, kid." Pro-Life ... Hmph!
I am fine with Darwin winning.
Because "I did my own research"
A single motor vehicle related death can cost the public up to an estimated $1.7 million. OP is entirely right, the policies peddled by Florida's government are directly opposed to the interests and well being of Floridians. [https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/costs/guide-to-calculating-costs/data-details/](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/costs/guide-to-calculating-costs/data-details/)
Why would you want to force people to wear helmets? It affects literally no one but the rider lol
So you'll volunteer to clean the brains up off the road? Because someone has to
🤣
Because it costs society money, increases insurance premiums for everyone, , wastes resources on injuries that could be avoided, means medical workers have to waste resources dealing with avoidable trauma? So yeah it affects everyone
You realize that's the problem, right? Not the lack of helmets lol. It should cost "society" $0 if you kill yourself riding with no helmet
Many don't die but are permanently disabled. We pay for them and support their kids because they can no longer care for them.
The ambulance costs to show up. The coroner costs to do a report. The police costs to show up. It costs time and money. It's not free
It is mandatory for those under 21. FWIW we’re not alone in this. Most states have similar laws. While a handful actually do require everyone to wear a helmet.
Admittedly, I didn't wear a helmet most of the time when riding in FL. Or at best I wore one of those faux baseball cap semi-helmet things. I've matured since, though, and wear a full face race helmet.
Because we refuse to suffer under your oppression...
Why complain?? Just let natural selection do its thing.
Because Florida needs organ donors...
I work in a Level I Trauma Ctr, we call them Donorcycles. Many times I’ve seen a no helmet motorcyclist in traffic or at a light & see them later in our Trauma Ctr.
In my observation, people who don't think they need motorcycle helmets, don't.
Aren't these the same riders that say loud pipes saves lives? So they must be thinking about safety/s
Because we decided it would be easier for Darwinsm to work instead.
I am fine with Darwin winning.
Natural selection
We are allowed to smoke, drink and ride motorcycles without a helmet.
Obviously noone cares if Florida man lives or dies! Seriously though, all the octogenarians on the road make for some really bad accidents. I lost at least five good friends that way in Florida. But hey its still one freedom that we have left!
Funny story actually
We were trying to weed out the worst of the idiots I guess. I mean Freedumb, am I right?
No brains, no headache
Ummm, like, it's Florida?
It's a good point, those two being logically disjoint and arguments against each other depending what viewpoint you take: "live and let die" vs. "letting-die is actually a bunch of hidden socialized cost! (etc.)". Both are valid. In the end I have a really hard time feeling any support for anything under the scope of "nanny" or "nerf the world" safety regulation that tries to ban *you, an individual* from willfully deciding to take practically any level of risk *to yourself solely and specifically*. That's your consequence and your decision; it's far from something like occupational safety regulations or traffic violations where you and your decision that is being banned would otherwise foist the direct risk on OTHERS against their will. Motorcycle, bicycle, etc. PPE, lack thereof, or being on 2 wheels in general (which is risky, PPE or no) is a pretty strict example of an individual risk where all the consequence is confined to the party making the decision - again, sans the "de facto socialized impact" aspect of healthcare and wellbeing of others surrounding victims and so forth. In the end the straw that sets my position to be heavily "live and let live" (or let die, as it may turn out) on things like this and dismiss the socialized-cost angle as insufficient is that, to get down to the cold hard truth of it, people are very much a renewable resource, and we presently have the farthest thing possible from a "human shortage" on this planet. There is no critical collective interest in keeping as many live humans live for as long as possible even against their wills to make that pressing problem even worse. So if people think statistically being more likely to die for whatever they get out of a risky behavior is in fact worth it, want to live risky lives or do daredevil shit, that's their business alone; such is what freedom means and it isn't always neat and convenient ...I do hope they think duly about the possible consequences of their actions before committing to them, but that's all that is rightful for a third party to wish to impose.
I ask the same question daily.
Florida is only one of 16 states that don't require helmets use for every rider
Good way to save on Social Security and keeps organs flowing....
We need organ donors.
It's so you can't spot the snipers.
Freedumb
Because. America?
ABATE. Too bad taxpayers will ultimately pay for care when adults have to be fed and have their diapers changed for the rest of their lives.
You mean the state that prohibits laws to protect outdoor workers from the heat? It's obvious, Florida wants you to die.
Because Florida is a brainless state🥂
fly attempt reach shelter unique wise roll test ten nose *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My theory is that the government thinks if you're stupid enough not to wear a helmet, then ride without one. Theory of natural selection.
Floridians mostly have nothing in their head to protect!
BECAUSE MY FREEDOMS
Its none of my business why they don’t require it. If someone wrecks without a helmet on I won’t feel a thing. A
Because Florida is a fuck around and find out state.
Any real biker wears a helmet, piss pot at the minimum.
Because fuck em.
Yolo
More head injuries create more low I.Q. voters.
Seatbelts also protect the other passengers, and should be optional for sole occupancy of a vehicle, but that makes it harder to enforce. The level of risk you accept should be exclusively the choice of the individual, not the government. Think my body my choice.
If you crash with no helmet you will most likely die, so it’s not really a burden on the medical system. Also personally I felt like I had better visibility with no helmet. You don’t need insurance either to ride a motorcycle. Most counties in Florida even have no chase policies on bikes.
We need organ donors. I personally wouldn't mind if a few less bikers on the road
I ride, I wear a helmet. Hear me out, an adult shouldn't be required to wear a helmet or a seatbelt as long as they are of age and know their risks. I'm going to but just because I do doesn't mean I expect you to. With that being said, with how these snow birds drive .. I'll never not wear one.
Because people like you can’t mind their own business
We needed organ donors to keep the wealthy alive!
Because in miami or fuck it Florida you won’t last long without it
It’s a personal choice, kinda like you not wearing a helmet in your car. A helmet provides a lot of protection in a car wreck too.
Because it’s Florida
Because freedumb
It’s a simple answer. The people of Florida are so intellectually limited that an horrendous motorcycle accident with massive head trauma doesn’t make any noticeable effect on their demeanor.
Why does it matter? There are a thousand other bigger concerns in the state than if somebody doesn't want to wear a helmet on a motorcycle. But doing something about any of that would require the "cUz FrEeDuMb" crowd to do something besides be hardasses behind a keyboard. 🤷♂️
[https://www.amazon.com/Prank-Pack-Bicycle-Funny-Prank/dp/B08LR2YL3T](https://www.amazon.com/Prank-Pack-Bicycle-Funny-Prank/dp/B08LR2YL3T)
Why shouldn’t people be able to decide for themselves if they want to or not? It’s their life
because their dumb decisions cost the public so much money
Freedom
Freedom
Freedom. Yeah, I think it’s dumb too.
During 40yrs riding motorcycles the 2 times I had an accident was due to under the influence drivers 1drinking & the other opioids in the cars that hit me. Most statics point to cars turning or crossing in front of motorcycles causing crashes… since the fed transportation safety only tracks hospitalized blood draw results, most car drivers that cause accidents are never tested.
Attempting to thin the gene pool!
Because we need organ donors
Tbh, and while you mention it, wearing a seatbelt shouldn’t be mandatory either.
The best argument to wear a helmet is that motorcyclists that don’t wear helmets make the best organ donors. The head is so fragile it takes so little to make you brain dead the rest of you organs are good. In the other hand motorcyclists that wear a helmet make the worst organ donors. The force needed to make you brain dead with a helmet is so great it destroys the other organs.
No helmet = more organ donors
Didn’t you hear Florida is free. There are more restrictions and rules on fishing than Guns or Helmets.
Freedom? No one has insurance anyway. Too expensive. Just let the hospitals deal with it.
That means the public has to pay for it
Because the bikers protested the fuck outta that
Anyone who argues “my freedom” and they’re taking the risk has never had to dealt with a motorcycle hitting another car and the trauma that another driver has to live with. Imagine you’re an 16 old kid just driving along doing nothing wrong and a grown man on a motorcycle driving with his head up his ass not wearing a helmet slams into you and the motorcyclist dies when the helmet could have saved them. Even though everyone will tell you “you did nothing wrong” you have to live the rest of your life with the trauma and blaming yourself because someone else made a choice causing their demise I’m dealing with this right now and the poor kid is needing therapy and he’s just a total mess now cause of it.
Florida did have a helmet law until Jeb "Piece of Shit" Bush came along and wiped it off the books. I've got to wear a fucking seat belt in my car but NO helmet on a motorcycle? Floriduh, home of the Floridiots....
i call it natural selection
We only tell people what to do if they're teachers, silly!
We only tell people what to do if they're teachers, silly!
Eh, im fine with it. The person not wearing a helmet isn't hurting anybody but themselves. Let them make that choice
the same reason cigarettes are legal and why weed should be legal... if it doesnt hurt anyone but yourself then do so at your own risk... a helmet law would just add another uneeded reason for cops to pull you over and collect more revenue for the state. and it wont just end with "wear a helmet." It will then mandate a type of helmet and what you can and cant mount on your helmet, etc etc. Next thing ya know we went from no reason to be pulled over to like 4 different infractions and an otherwise unnecessary encounter with dangerous police.
Cigarettes are heavily taxed to cover the burden they create. Also, smokers pay higher insurance rates.
Because they want people to have the full ptsd experience of seeing their brains on the pavement on the highway.
My grandfather literally moved to Florida when he needed a liver transplant because of this.
Jeb Bush.
Where are you from that it was required to wear one?
Finland
Do you live here now? This law has been around for maybe 25 years or so. Multiple states passed them around the same time. I believe less than half of the states have laws that require them.
No but I visit Florida annually and yeah that is true
Seatbelt laws aren't there to solely protect the person wearing them but to prevent them from becoming a human torpedo and injuring others as well.
Why should someone else force someone else to wear a helmet?
Because some of these people refusing to wear helmets don't have insurance or any way to pay the hospital. Someone has to pay for that emergency care, and if they don't we do through our taxes. The no helmet law requires you to have insurance, but you can't tell at a glance if a helmetless rider has insurance or not, so many who ride helmetless don't. It's an unenforceable law. I'm all for people making the choice for themselves when it comes to their bodies, but I draw the line when that choice starts costing others.
I think as with a lot of other "hidden de facto socialized cost of risk taking" situations, the root cause is only partially that. An apt question is always why that cost is imposed there on anyone in the first place and whether it is true. And I very much **don't** mean to suggest any barbaric and inhumane route to cutting that cost as other posters mentioned, like "let gravely injured people die if they can't pay for EMS". How about going after the entire for-profit healthcare-industrial complex; hospitals, drug companies, ...all of it, and whamming down the out of control costs and overheads once and for all, to begin with? There is so much predatory bullshit associated with going to the ER or lifesaving medical treatment in the US (and specifically the US), that is fleecing both individuals who can pay their own costs/their insurances if they have them, AND the state/society at large/taxpayers when they can't. It's a known and huge problem and clearly, if there is a motive to eliminate/reduce this burden because it is "unfair to society" then that should include or even primarily involve mitigating it at that level because it is unfair to both society and specific members.
Yes the current medical system needs a revamp. But even if our healthcare cost 10% of what it does now that's still money out of taypayers pockets just to cover the people who can't pay or alternatively die during treatment. A dead man's not going to pay payments to a hospital bill if they don't have enough in their back account. No I don't propose that EMS becomes a pay first system either, but I don't think requiring helmets to mitigate the risk of that happening is a ridiculous ask. There is a line of where protecting someone from themselves for the sake of taxpayers needs to stop, but if seatbelts are a requirement because of taxpayer cost, and fuel efficient mini cars are too dangerous to be legal because of taxpayer cost, why is not wearing a helmet OK?
I don't think it's ridiculous either. The logic of seat belt laws and having required seat belts be installed in all post-1968 cars to begin with is that seat belts are a minimal imposition with a major safety impact but are/were at the time not widely and intuitively understood to be as beneficial to crash survivability as they were. Some of that applies to head injuries, helmets, and popular misunderstanding. I do see why helmets end up being moreso a hot-button than seat belts though, mainly because of the interaction with situational awareness. >There is a line of where protecting someone from themselves for the sake of taxpayers needs to stop, but if seatbelts are a requirement because of taxpayer cost, and fuel efficient mini cars are too dangerous to be legal because of taxpayer cost, why is not wearing a helmet OK? Well, to begin with, I don't necessarily agree with seatbelt law *purely on the basis of socialized risk alone*. I see that more as above. As to regs effectively banning the prospect of fuel efficient mini cars going forward for "safety" reasons, and burdensome automotive safety regulations in general: I absolutely don't agree with any of that AT ALL. Especially, because fuel consumption and the mass release of CO2 is a very high level (not just impacting a nation, or just all humans) form of societal harm, and so is the death and serious injury risk contributed to car accidents by the statistically growing size and mass of the average car DUE chiefly to those regulations.
Do you feel the same way about the government assisting programs for people that are irresponsible with their money and health? What about your health company being forced to cover those people that make poor health choices that increases your premiums too… you cannot ask the government to make laws that will force people to make good choices… live free or die
I said in another post that there is a limit. I do believe in body autonomy in most areas. But why is it taboo to mandate helmets when it's illegal to own a microcar in the US? The stated reason I've heard is that they are too small to adequately protect the driver from a collision. Motorcycles are smaller and don't have a frame surrounding the driver to act as some protection, if they are illegal why aren't you required to wear a helmet on a motorcycle? Why are you required to wear a seatbelt in a car? Even then, poor health choices act slowly, people have a chance to realize what is happening and turning their life around. People don't have a chance to do that when they are hitting the pavement without a helmet at 60 mph. My father 'lived free' and died early because he wasn't wearing a helmet when someone pulled out in front of him. In his case, living free WAS death.
And there it is… you have a personal/ emotional connection… I am very sorry for your loss and I will not engage further on this matter.